I love the non-Muslim Muslim fundamentalists like Peter B; bin Laden's true foot soldiers whose understanding of Islam is as shallow as the Taliban's, but without the excuse of being illiterate, and with the added danger of having some influence on Western policy.

The idea of "literal interpretation" here is ridiculous because it's not in any context. Those sentences - *in those times* - were no worse than those laid out in the Old Testament, or, for that matter, those practiced under British common law 200 years ago. You want to see gruesome punishment, then read Michael Foucault "Discipline and Punish" and look at the grotesque landscape of torture that defined European punishment for criminals and deviants a couple hundred years ago.

So in the context of its time, the punishments were not some singularly harsh proscriptions that show how truly ebil the Muslims are. That doesn't mean that it makes any sense to take them literally today...but I suppose any pathetic rationalizations must be conjured up in a desperate bid to stir up enough hate so that people oppose the Cordoba plan.

In the context of 7th century desert Arabian peninsula, where there is no concept of a prison system or a possibility of making one, where tribes constantly raided each other, slayed children and women etc, where trade to southern Yemen and the Levant was both vital to the peninsula and hazardous because of raids, in that context, these chooping punishments were mostly used as a deterrant, very few cases have been recorded, and excuses were thought constantly to not carry them out. The prophet instructed his men to do best to avoid punishments with any doubt.

Most (IIRC all beginning with Omar?) of the 4 Rashidun Khalifs after the prophet suspended these punishments.

Matrices wrote:

I love the non-Muslim Muslim fundamentalists like Peter B; bin Laden's true foot soldiers whose understanding of Islam is as shallow as the Taliban's, but without the excuse of being illiterate, and with the added danger of having some influence on Western policy.

Thank you. It's quite remarkable that these arguments are exactly the same as they are used by radical fundamentalists, I and most muslims are just sick of them. "Not being good muslims", literal interpretations detached from context, black and white thinking, shallow thought, it's the same blueprint.

Those sentences - *in those times* - were no worse than those laid out in the Old Testament

Which bit of the koran says "Oh, btw, you can reject any and all of this if it ever becomes inconvenient due to scientific advances or greater recognition of human rights"?

Christians have the new covenant that blows much of the old testament's idiocy out of the water. Where is the islamic new covenant that would let us disregard islamic barbarism?

Ever heard the phrase, "To someone with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail?"

It's you; you're the hammer.

Honestly, I would try to explain something of, well, any of the major schools of Islamic thought to you, except that it would be completely pointless because your hate and vitriol just shits up this thread like it does with any other thread in which Islam figures even remotely. You have no scholarship, expertise, first-hand experience, or knowledge of the situation, but because you have the proverbial soapbox and the ability to do a Google search, you think you actually have some kind of valid argument in there somewhere.

Let's just do a basic exercise to see if we can exorcise and expose the great world-historic evil that is Islam, shall we?

If "Islamic barbarism" is such a huge threat, then let's just look at recent history - the 20th century should suffice. How many hands would the Taliban would have to cut off, etc., to begin to rival any of the "barbarisms" that litter the 20th century? Of the top ten I can think of, most were Western and none were Muslim. Now now, you can pout and whine that those movements weren't Christian, and you can pretend that they weren't heavily influenced by strains of Christianity, but all you do in that case is imply that Christianity is so weak and irrelevant as a religious force that it can't stop its followers from committing the worst atrocities in the history of our species. And if that is true, then it was an absence of religion - athiesm, if you will - that enabled these atrocities...in which case your own belief system just became rather suspect.

Anyway, I doubt that even the most cursory examination of the most obvious facts will make any impact; hate is a frame of mind, not a conclusion arrived at by carefully sorting through evidence.

Forget majorities. Is there evidence that this particular group of lawyers and doctors etc living in Manhattan hold those beliefs?

They're hardly very good muslims if they don't.

That is not an answer to the question. Maybe they are simply bad Muslims. But unless you have any evidence against this particular group of people, your just railing about people unrelated to this story.

So, one again. Do you have any evidence that this particular group holds those beliefs or are you just trolling the thread with your anti Muslim skreed? If they don't hold those beliefs, how is it relevant that others day?

Unless your argument is simply we shouldn't like these people because we don't like others whose religion shares the same name.

I love the non-Muslim Muslim fundamentalists like Peter B; bin Laden's true foot soldiers whose understanding of Islam is as shallow as the Taliban's, but without the excuse of being illiterate, and with the added danger of having some influence on Western policy.

Thank you. It's quite remarkable that these arguments are exactly the same as they are used by radical fundamentalists, I and most muslims are just sick of them. "Not being good muslims", literal interpretations detached from context, black and white thinking, shallow thought, it's the same blueprint.

It's a familiar and predictable story. The morons who are jumping up and down shouting that the Cordoba facility is a "monument to terrorism" are themselves a monument to bin Laden's success. Their very frame of mind is a monument to bin Laden. It fascinates me that, for all their hatred of Muslims, the conservatives like Gingrich take bin Laden's worldview as their Gospel and reference point for determining what America should and shouldn't do.

The most obscene thing? Bin Laden has killed far, far more Muslims than Americans. But in their obscene self-absorption and desperation to be relevant, Gingrich et al. are nonetheless eager to put the murderer and the victim in the same box and smear all Muslims. It's as if they want it to be true and they want to will into existence bin Laden's own vision of a Muslim mass united under him. Disgusting.

In the context of 7th century desert Arabian peninsula, where there is no concept of a prison system or a possibility of making one, where tribes constantly raided each other, slayed children and women etc, where trade to southern Yemen and the Levant was both vital to the peninsula and hazardous because of raids, in that context, these chooping punishments were mostly used as a deterrant, very few cases have been recorded, and excuses were thought constantly to not carry them out. The prophet instructed his men to do best to avoid punishments with any doubt.

Then why didn't Gabriel, delivering a message from fucking god, tell Mohammed to do something about it? Why did he instead choose to perpetuate existing barbarism instead of showing some kind of fucking enlightenment?

Hand-chopping as a means of punishment was, of course, unexceptional back in those days, so no-one batted an eyelid over it. It's only later that people have tried to weasel out of it.

Hand-chopping was good enough for the prophet. Why isn't it good enough for you?

Quote:

Thank you. It's quite remarkable that these arguments are exactly the same as they are used by radical fundamentalists, I and most muslims are just sick of them. "Not being good muslims", literal interpretations detached from context, black and white thinking, shallow thought, it's the same blueprint.

Context?

This is meant to be a divine message. Is your god really that stupid that he can't deliver a message that's clear and unambiguous?

Jesus may have been a bit of a dick--kicking over the tables of well-meaning entrepreneurs, for example, was a pretty asshole move--but he has nothing on that paedophile.

Of course, they all pale into insignificance compared to the genocidal maniac that is their god.

It's bad enough that religion requires the rejection of objective reality. But you guys make it so much worse by choosing such unworthy characters to follow. The Abrahamic god simply does not deserve to be revered.

Jesus may have been a bit of a dick--kicking over the tables of well-meaning entrepreneurs, for example, was a pretty asshole move--but he has nothing on that paedophile.

Hahaha, clown exposed. Notice that in all the hate-filled frothing and general foaming at the mouth, he neatly and conveniently avoids the slice of reality known as the unprecedented barbarism of the 20th century that was pointed out to him.

The best part is that the most committed historic opponents of Islam never claimed such absurdities; this is a relatively new addition to the pathology of hate. Again, it's like these guys are trying so hard to show bin Laden that they are doing their part: "See, Mr. bin Laden sir, see! We are trying our hardest to prove that America hates Islam for you, we've even invented new and improved anachronistic slanders!"

At any rate, this Catholic ethicist just gets it right, deconstructing the nonsense point by point:

Hahaha, clown exposed. Notice that in all the hate-filled frothing and general foaming at the mouth, he neatly and conveniently avoids the slice of reality known as the unprecedented barbarism of the 20th century that was pointed out to him.

I must have missed that. But I can't see the relevance.

Hitler: Condemned as a genocidal mass murdererStalin: Condemned as a mass murdererMao: Condemned as a mass murdereretc.

God: Revered as a, well, god. In spite of an act of genocide that wiped out all but two humans.Mohammed: Revered as a divinely inspired prophet, in spite of spouting counterfactual idiocy and raping a 9 year old. OK, sure, raping a 9 year old doesn't make you wrong, necessarily. But it does at least make you the kind of person we should strive to not follow. The moral teachings of such a depraved individual are hardly likely to be valuable.

Quote:

The best part is that the most committed historic opponents of Islam never claimed such absurdities

The best part is that the most committed historic opponents of Islam never claimed such absurdities

Exactly which bit are you claiming to be absurd?

Bro, in a thread about a Muslim facility, you've gone from "I hate this religion" to "this religion is hateful and violent" to "Muslims chop off people's hands" to "well only the good ones chop off people's hands" to "I don't want to address the 20th century being the most violent in human history despite having nothing to do with Muslims, so I'm going to start ranting like Hirsi Ali."

Which bit isn't absurd? Pointing out "absurd" to you would be like delivering a dissertation on neurosis to the inmates at Arkham.

Bro, in a thread about a Muslim facility, you've gone from "I hate this religion" to "this religion is hateful and violent" to "Muslims chop off people's hands" to "well only the good ones chop off people's hands"

All four of those views are consistent and I hold them simultaneously. I have not gone from one to the other, as you seem to suggest.

Quote:

to "I don't want to address the 20th century being the most violent in human history despite having nothing to do with Muslims, so I'm going to start ranting like Hirsi Ali."

I missed the post where you mentioned it, but I've since addressed it, so you can cut that shit out.

Holding god up to the same standards of scrutiny as we do the 20th century totalitarians, and judging Mohammed in the way we judge Josef Fritzl, would be a jolly good start. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the atrocities of the 20th century totalitarians, just as soon as everyone else holds religious figures to the same standard.

How is any of these relevant to the particular group of Muslims on Manhattan wanting to build their building?

Which muslims don't follow the teachings of the paedophile Mohammed?

Again, how is that relevant to the particular group of Muslims wanting to build this building? Even if Mohammaed was a pedo, even if they're bad muslims by letter of the law, even if they think Stephanie Meirs is a fantastic writer, none of that changes the fact that they seem to choose to follow their particular religion in a different way than the 9/11 bombers.

Oh, and Mark_oo, re your report of the thread. I'm not ignoring the questions. I just don't believe them to be legitimate. As I've already stated, all religion is bad. Starbuck79's repeated questioning essentially boils down to, "are these muslims as bad as those other muslims", and the answer is yes, because they're all religious. That alone is reason enough to reject what they are striving to do. That alone is bad enough.

Again, how is that relevant to the particular group of Muslims wanting to build this building? Even if Mohammaed was a pedo,

He was, the koran states it clearly. It is not in any doubt. At best, people can claim that by the standards of the day it was no big deal, but that is not any kind of meaningful defence.

Quote:

even if they're bad muslims by letter of the law, even if they think Stephanie Meirs is a fantastic writer, none of that changes the fact that they seem to choose to follow their particular religion in a different way than the 9/11 bombers.

The problem is that they are following their particular religion (or indeed, any religion at all, but particularly this one). It doesn't matter how they do it; what matters is that they are doing it.

Oh, and Mark_oo, re your report of the thread. I'm not ignoring the questions. I just don't believe them to be legitimate. As I've already stated, all religion is bad. Starbuck79's repeated questioning essentially boils down to, "are these muslims as bad as those other muslims", and the answer is yes, because they're all religious. That alone is reason enough to reject what they are striving to do. That alone is bad enough.

I thought thread reports were supposed to be dealt with in-house, not called out. I guess that's why they decided to make you a mod. Pretty fucking classy.

You claimed that Islam is singularly barbaric and violent. And yet you concede that in the most violent century of our species, with the most barbaric crimes, the ideologies and offenders are overwhelmingly Western. While you try to coyly limit the damage to the stereotypical trio of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, honorable mention must go to the United States in Japan and Vietnam, and to Europe in the ex-colonies, where the death toll is in the millions.

It's not simultaneously possible for Islam to be singularly violent and also somehow absent in the offender's list for the most singularly violent century in history. It's a zero-sum proposition: the barbaric religion should be in the lead, not out of sight, in the barbaric century.

Strike one.

Conversely, if Islam is the most violent belief system, then the other ideologies should be less violent: American nationalism, European colonialism, Fascism, Stalinism, and Maoism. But again, they all take the lead in the death toll and devastation departments in the previous century.

Strike two.

Further, you claimed that the New Testament nullifies the Old, thus saving Christendom from the barbarism you attribute to Islam. And yet, in the 20th century offenders' list, Europe and America figure prominently and are heavily Christian. So either the religion had no influence and was completely useless, or it played some contributory role in the violence. Either way, your contention again fails.

Strike three.

(This, by the way, completely leaves out the preceding 400 years of European colonization, slavery, and extermination, where again Islam was absent for all the major crimes.)

And so, robbed of this argument, you descend to an even more absurd one, insisting that the religion's founder is a pedophile and a rapist. Aside from being a laughably desperate recapitulation of Hirsi Ali's fashionable tirade among Islamophobes, it is even more irrelevant to the actual subject of this thread - proving, once again, that you merely inserted yourself here to spread your hate regardless of how off-topic it is.

Unless of course you will now argue that the Cordoba facility will present a threat to the children in NYC...yes, I can see it now...

Oh, and Mark_oo, re your report of the thread. I'm not ignoring the questions. I just don't believe them to be legitimate. As I've already stated, all religion is bad. Starbuck79's repeated questioning essentially boils down to, "are these muslims as bad as those other muslims", and the answer is yes, because they're all religious. That alone is reason enough to reject what they are striving to do. That alone is bad enough.

I thought thread reports were supposed to be dealt with in-house, not called out. I guess that's why they decided to make you a mod. Pretty fucking classy.

How is this guy a mod of anything? That's pretty hilarious, in a sad, sad, way. Are we going to have a Klansmen and National Alliance member round out the list of Ars moderators, too? How long would a mod be tolerated if, in a thread about bagels and latkas, he insisted that the Jews drank Christ's blood and are collectively responsible for the financial meltdown?

Oh, and Mark_oo, re your report of the thread. I'm not ignoring the questions. I just don't believe them to be legitimate. As I've already stated, all religion is bad. Starbuck79's repeated questioning essentially boils down to, "are these muslims as bad as those other muslims", and the answer is yes, because they're all religious. That alone is reason enough to reject what they are striving to do. That alone is bad enough.

I thought thread reports were supposed to be dealt with in-house, not called out. I guess that's why they decided to make you a mod. Pretty fucking classy.

How is this guy a mod of anything? That's pretty hilarious, in a sad, sad, way. Are we going to have a Klansmen and National Alliance member round out the list of Ars moderators, too? How long would a mod be tolerated if he, in a thread about bagels and latkas, he insisted that the Jews drank Christ's blood and are collectively responsible for the financial meltdown?

Yet another sign of the times...

I suspect this is the point where folks are told to take their complaints to Mods@Ars.

Now that Peter has admitted that he was basically off top complaining for no particular reason we can all move on.

When it was claimed that christian countries outside the west are just as bad as muslim ones, yes. There was a context; a specific comparison was being made and I was responding to it. You are making a broader reading that is not justified by context.

Quote:

And yet you concede that in the most violent century of our species, with the most barbaric crimes, the ideologies and offenders are overwhelmingly Western. While you try to coyly limit the damage to the stereotypical trio of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler,

As Mao and Stalin were both born in Asia, I'm struggling to see the sense in which they were "western".

Quote:

honorable mention must go to the United States in Japan and Vietnam, and to Europe in the ex-colonies, where the death toll is in the millions.

The US in Japan and Vietnam? Not really. That was merely war.

Quote:

It's not simultaneously possible for Islam to be singularly violent and also somehow absent in the offender's list for the most singularly violent century in history. It's a zero-sum proposition: the barbaric religion should be in the lead, not out of sight, in the barbaric century.

Er, it is in the lead, when compared to other religions. Christians don't actually chop off hands or heads, because their religion does not compel them to. It doesn't say much about law and order at all, really; it leaves that up to the state.

Quote:

Further, you claimed that the New Testament nullifies the Old, thus saving Christendom from the barbarism you attribute to Islam. And yet, in the 20th century offenders' list, Europe and America figure prominently and are heavily Christian. So either the religion had no influence and was completely useless, or it played some contributory role in the violence. Either way, your contention again fails.

Christianity is, for many christians (especially in Europe) completely useless.

But you're acting as if christianity and islam are somehow equivalent. Christians have no sharia. They leave law and order up to the state. They are not implored to wage war against infidels. Muslims are, and muslims act on it. Modern christians may go to war, but they are not compelled to do so by their religion. So again, for the purpose of the narrow comparison being made, islam is worse.

Quote:

(This, by the way, completely leaves out the preceding 400 years of European colonization, slavery, and extermination, where again Islam was absent for all the major crimes.)

No surprise there. Why would we expect islam to be a modernizing force?

Ahh, but that's more than a little disingenuous Peter. You know full well that there would be absolutely zero support for blocking a church in the same place. You've just chosen to make common cause with racists and xenophobes out of situational convenience.

I myself am also an atheist, but I do not pretend that promoting religious conflict will in any way promote good outcomes overall, or in this instance, be in line with the fundamental law of the United States.